Critical Reasoning

Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code number (from 1 to 9) indicating the type or quality of the plastic. Plastics with the lowest code numbers are the easiest for recycling plants to recycle and are thus the most likely to be recycled after use rather than dumped in landfills. Plastics labeled with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled. Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled, therefore, by refusing to purchase those products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion above?

(A) The cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling discarded plastics is currently higher than the cost of manufacturing new plastics from virgin materials.
(B) Many consumers are unaware of the codes that are stamped on the plastic containers.
(C) A plastic container almost always has a higher code number after it is recycled than it had before recycling because the recycling process causes a degradation of the quality of the plastic.
(D) Products packaged in plastics with the lowest code numbers are often more expensive than those packaged in the higher-numbered plastics.
(E) Communities that collect all discarded plastic containers for potential recycling later dump in landfills plastics with higher-numbered codes only when it is clear that no recycler will take them.

I wish I were naturally good at these CR questions!!

I don't really know but I'm guessing C. I think this is actually stating that regardless of what customers try to do, in the long term, plastics will still end up as high number plastics and there's nothing they can do to stop this?

A - need more info on cost so OOS
B - could be this one but I can't deal with double negatives so couldn't be sure!
C - the one I didn't cancel out
D - cost out of scope
E - doesn't do anything to argument

IMO B.
I thought it was C too, but the conclusion emphasizes the long term waste reduction that goes UNRECYCLED. Then, for C, whether the code is higher after recycled once wouldn't matter I think-

I was confused between B and D but B looks better to me
Also cost is not out of scope. This can weaken the argument becoz if lowest code numbers are often more expensive then people will not refuse to buy products in the higher-numbered plastics.

B for me, others are tempting but B nails the issue rock solid.

B for me

I will go with A.

OA please

there is nothing mentioned in the stimulus,,regarding cost of the plastics...


imo:B

(B)

IMO B

OA pls

i too had b but oa is C. :roll:

Initially , I was left with ans choices C and E as contenders , but I worked my way out as follows :

Conclusion :
Refusing to use plastic with highest code numbers ---> reduction in the amount of unrecycled waste

In order to weaken the above :

(a)Out of scope.Comparing costs of manufacturing new plastic to that of recycling discarded plastic does nothing to weaken the conclusion.

(b)Many consumers are unaware of codes, BEWARE not all ( Note : many encompasses a wide range of users, we do not know if MANY consumers are greater than half of the total sample of consumers or less or even equal )

(c) If the sample of plastic containers available to consumers , consists mainly of containers with higher codes, it will not lead to significant reduction in the unrecycled waste. Correctly weakened.

(d) This comparison does not weaken the conclusion.What if environment consumers choose to buy the products packaged in costlier plastics over cheaper plastics ? ( we do not know...)

(e) Out of scope..( though it was my prefered answer, but later found that it works much beyond what is being asked for )

Plz comment on my reasoning....

Sorry ..a small correction .Please read ans choice (d) as :

d) This comparison does not weaken the conclusion.What if environment conscious consumers choose to buy the products packaged in costlier plastics over cheaper plastics ? ( we do not know...)

Hmm..is this an LSAT question? Yummy...

1) Weaken Q
2) Focus on the conclusion and its support.

(A) The cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling discarded plastics is currently higher than the cost of manufacturing new plastics from virgin materials.
Eliminate: Out of scope. Who cares about the cost, we're talking about harming the environment.

(B) Many consumers are unaware of the codes that are stamped on the plastic containers.
Eliminate: Still consistent with info given and thus irrelevant. If "most" people are aware, they could reduce their consumption.

(C) A plastic container almost always has a higher code number after it is recycled than it had before recycling because the recycling process causes a degradation of the quality of the plastic.

My choice. Should people keep purchasing the lowered numbered plastics, there would be a net increase in higher numbered plastics as more lowered numbered plastics are bought and recycled. Therefore, the environment is still harmed.

(D) Products packaged in plastics with the lowest code numbers are often more expensive than those packaged in the higher-numbered plastics.
Eliminate: Out of scope. Again, costs.

(E) Communities that collect all discarded plastic containers for potential recycling later dump in landfills plastics with higher-numbered codes only when it is clear that no recycler will take them.
Eliminate: Still consistent with info given, thus irrelevant. If consumers are not purchasing the higher-numbered plastics, there won't be much to dump anyways.

Somerandomguy wrote:Hmm..is this an LSAT question? Yummy...

1) Weaken Q
2) Focus on the conclusion and its support.

(A) The cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling discarded plastics is currently higher than the cost of manufacturing new plastics from virgin materials.
Eliminate: Out of scope. Who cares about the cost, we're talking about harming the environment.

(B) Many consumers are unaware of the codes that are stamped on the plastic containers.
Eliminate: Still consistent with info given and thus irrelevant. If "most" people are aware, they could reduce their consumption.

(C) A plastic container almost always has a higher code number after it is recycled than it had before recycling because the recycling process causes a degradation of the quality of the plastic.

My choice. Should people keep purchasing the lowered numbered plastics, there would be a net increase in higher numbered plastics as more lowered numbered plastics are bought and recycled. Therefore, the environment is still harmed.

(D) Products packaged in plastics with the lowest code numbers are often more expensive than those packaged in the higher-numbered plastics.
Eliminate: Out of scope. Again, costs.

(E) Communities that collect all discarded plastic containers for potential recycling later dump in landfills plastics with higher-numbered codes only when it is clear that no recycler will take them.
Eliminate: Still consistent with info given, thus irrelevant. If consumers are not purchasing the higher-numbered plastics, there won't be much to dump anyways.

You hit the nail on the head again bro!

Well done! 8) Let me me the first who gives you a big THANKS!